DSLR as a scanner

[cmo]

In the past this question was always answered with "forget it".

But today DSLRs like a Canon 5D Mark2 offer a very high resolution, practically no noise and a lot of speed.

So, it's time for an update.

Did someone here try to use one of these modern high-end DSLRs with a slide copy attachment and a very good macro lens to scan 35mm negatives or slides?

 

[Bruce Watson]

In the past this question was always answered with "forget it".

Yup. It has. Something about using the right tool for the job. I don't think a new chip is going to change that any. But try it and report back your results.

 

[pellicle]

In the past this question was always answered with "forget it".

But today DSLRs like a Canon 5D Mark2 offer a very high resolution, practically no noise and a lot of speed.

So, it's time for an update.

its never been about the size of the sensor its been about the dynamic range of the sensor and other things like optics. I've never been unhappy with the number of pixels I got from attempting copy-stand of 35mm slides with my digital, I've just been unhappy with copy quality vs a scan.

Film has different dynamic range to a scene (lower) so you will not be making the best out of your sensor. I recently gave it a go with some FD series macro gear I got for my G1 and the images were so lousy I deleted them. Heck my Epson flatbed 3200 does a better job. (and to be honest it does pretty well all things considered)

 

[Ray Heath]

g'day cmox

i'd suggest it depends more on the image and what you intend to do with it

the sunset from a Kodachrome slide exposed in 1991, the fire escape from an old roll of Kodak Vericolor III (colour neg) exposed last year in a 40 year old Mamiya C33 TLR

both copied using a Canon 400D 10mP camera with an 85mm/1.8 lens and close up filters on a light box

neither is outstanding but they print ok to the limit of my A4 inkjet printer

 

[cmo]

g'day cmox

i'd suggest it depends more on the image and what you intend to do with it

Good question - process the images in Photoshop and print them. I don't have an enlarger any more. Most negatives are Tmax 100 and Tri-X, e.g. traditional black-and-white films. I own an Imacon 646, and the image quality is great, but it is slow to use - since I have my own business I suffer from a serious lack of time.

 

[Ray Heath]

sorry, see my post again, i pressed "Post Quick Reply" in error

 

[pellicle]

Hi

Good question - process the images in Photoshop and print them. I don't have an enlarger any more. Most negatives are Tmax 100 and Tri-X, e.g. traditional black-and-white films. I own an Imacon 646, and the image quality is great, but it is slow to use - since I have my own business I suffer from a serious lack of time.

perhaps an Epson 4990 with the negs laid on the tray for 'quick' bulk scans of 2200dpi, then use the Imacon for more detailed work If the images are black and white negative I reckon you'll get better results that way and you can set the scanner to be giving consistent reproducible results (not auto every time) using this method.

But don't just take my word for it, put a neg on a light box, mask it off and photograph it. Try to get anywhere near the results of a scanner (in terms of speed and throughput). Remember that you can set up 24 frames of film to scan and walk away.

Now, think about another point. How long have companies been making slide copy gear for 35mm and then digital cameras? People have been doing slide copy for ages too ... but do you see anyone doing this commercially? Have bottom end scanners disappeared?

Anyway, don't simply take my word, go grab your camera and look at the histograms. Figure out the time taken in post processing to get that to look right then compare that to what you get with a scanner. Read my site and look at what I've been doing with black and white and and Epson 3200 ... which won't scan as many in a hit but won't scan as badly as you might thing.

 

[pellicle]

the sunset from a Kodachrome slide exposed in 1991, the fire escape from an old roll of Kodak Vericolor III (colour neg) exposed last year in a 40 year old Mamiya C33 TLR

nice sunset mate

 

[cmo]

In the meanwhile I have looked around a bit and think that very high quality might be in reach, too.

Here one photographer reports about his simple setup:

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00TD6G

He only used a Nikon 50mm standard lens and a bellows. I downloaded his results and think for that simple setup they are pretty good but there is room for improvement, provided I invest more money - the last 10% of performance always cot 90% of the money. I expect results with a dedicated macro lens to be much better. A costly Canon MP-E 65mm lens might be a good choice, it is made for 1:1 size and beyond and has an outstanding reputation for its sharpness and resolution. I am not sure about the dynamic range, but the 5D2 has a nice 10 f-stops range. Other questions might be about a negative holder that keeps the film flat...

 

[pellicle]

and that bellows will cost about the price of a scanner. Tell me what it is you're gaining again?

 

[cmo]

The dedicated macro lens I mentioned costs about 800-900 Euros. It does not require a bellows but a precise film holder is needed which might cost 100-200 Euros. If I sell my Imacon I would probably get about 5000 Euros. I guess that handling the DSLR setup will be much faster than my Imacon which is a slow 646. If I get similar or equal results from my 35mm B/W negatives I gain time and can spend the money to hire a part-time worker to scan all my old negs

 

[pellicle]

Hi

If I sell my Imacon I would probably get about 5000 Euros. I guess that handling the DSLR setup will be much faster than my Imacon which is a slow 646. If I get similar or equal results from my 35mm B/W negatives I gain time and can spend the money to hire a part-time worker to scan all my old negs

I paid 150 euro for my Epson 3200 flatbed. I don't see substantial differences between it and my 4990 when doing black and white. If you're interested (and live in Europe) mines available for sale and I'll happily scan images for your examination if you are interested.

If you're after a swap from Imacon to 5DII then I suggest that with that as the capture camera you'll be better off than with 35mm ... but I still suspect you'll get better scans of your negatives with the epson than you do with the 5D II and macro lenses

 

[cmo]

I don't see substantial differences between it and my 4990 when doing black and white. If you're interested (and live in Europe) mines available for sale and I'll happily scan images for your examination if you are interested.

That is a very different league than an Imacon. How big are your prints?

If you're after a swap from Imacon to 5DII then I suggest that with that as the capture camera you'll be better off than with 35mm ... but I still suspect you'll get better scans of your negatives with the epson than you do with the 5D II and macro lenses

I use the 5D2 every day as my main camera. But I still have many thousands of negatives from the past. Almost all are on traditional b/w film, that is a discipline where the wheat ist really separated from the chaff. I often print my photos in A2 size. At that enlargement you can really see big differences between a flatbed, a better flatbed, a Nikon 5000, a Dimage Elite 5400II and an Imacon. I tried scans on all of these. Until now the Imacon was the best scanner.

If there are chances to tweak equal results from my 5D2 I could save much time and turn dead capital into liquid capital. Or, to say it with a former president of the USA: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..."

Any rocket scientists here who can help me?

 

[pellicle]

That is a very different league than an Imacon. How big are your prints?

I think you misunderstood me ... I said there is little difference between my epson 3200 and my epson 4990.

I use the 5D2 every day as my main camera. But I still have many thousands

ok ... so you have the camera why not just test?

of negatives from the past. Almost all are on traditional b/w film, that is a discipline where the wheat ist really separated from the chaff.

you have not yet addressed any answers about workflow and time in photographing your negatives vs plonking them on a flatbed and walking away.

like I said in the beginning photograph one of your negs and look at it in photoshop. IF you like it then spend time to sort out how to get around issues like barrel distortion and other lens aberrations.

you have all the tools to do this

 

[cmo]

ok ... so you have the camera why not just test?

Testing means to buy some costly equipment. Before I do that I asked here to find people who might have tried that before with a similar setup and can report about it.

you have not yet addressed any answers about workflow and time in photographing your negatives vs plonking them on a flatbed and walking away.

If I had reason to believe that results are top-notch with a flatbed I would plonk a lot. But I tried flatbeds, and I did not like the results.

 

[pschwart]

Testing means to buy some costly equipment. Before I do that I asked here to find people who might have tried that before with a similar setup and can report about it.



If I had reason to believe that results are top-notch with a flatbed I would plonk a lot. But I tried flatbeds, and I did not like the results.

The question isn't whether flatbeds produce great scans (I presume you mean
inexpensive consumer models. Something like an Eversmart is in a different league) but how a DSLR scan compares. This should be easy to figure out, right? We just need to see the same neg scanned both ways, and with the raw scans sufficiently enlarged for critical evaluation.

 

[sanking]

There was a long thread on this topic recently on the Large Format forum. The discussions there convince me that while it is theoretically possible to get high quality results from using a DSLR as a scanner it is far from a practical system. If you are the kind who likes to tinker around with equipment by all means pursue it, but if you are after practical results the best bet would be to purchase a dedicated 35mm film scanner.

Sandy King

 

[cmo]

There was a long thread on this topic recently on the Large Format forum.

Did they talk about scanning 35mm negs?

... if you are after practical results the best bet would be to purchase a dedicated 35mm film scanner.

I used a Nikon 5000 (awful for traditional B/W films), a Konica Minolta 5400 II (cheap, fast, good results but notoriously unreliable) and an Imacon 646 (best quality, but slow and expensive). I own a 646.

 

[pellicle]

Cmox, I don't know why you seem to be misinterpreting me however (last try) I'll try to cover my points

Testing means to buy some costly equipment.

no, first stage testing requires that you use any lens you have and photograph a negative so that it covers enough of the frame and is in focus. If you use a light table and mask off the image I'm sure you can get a well focused image. This will tell you if the histogram (range of densities) you are able to obtain with your camera is going to be compatible or not.

negative density ranges are not similar to scene brightness so you may not be making optimal range of your sensor ... unless tonal qualities are unimportant to you.

if this (and the then attendent workflow) appeals then you can go to the next stage of testing (aquiring optical systems to maximize your coverage of the negative over the sensor. I expect you can get this on ebay for under US$200. Film flatness on the photographing will be a non issue as at f11 you'll have plenty of DoF with copy gear.

Before I do that I asked here to find people who might have tried that before with a similar setup and can report about it.

you have had reports of similar setups, the only thing your 5DII has is more pixels, the rest is the same. no?

If I had reason to believe that results are top-notch with a flatbed I would plonk a lot. But I tried flatbeds, and I did not like the results.

and if I had said that a flatbed would equal your Imacon that would be different (and I would be subject to rightful scorn). However what I said was that you should use the flatbed for making the evaluations in bulk with similar settings and use the imacon for where detailed scans are required.

I have used Epson flatbed and Nikon 4000 for 35mm black and white and since I am unsatisfied with ICE on the black and white films I feel that for 2200dpi scans (3080 pixels more or less) it will be hard to beat that (and get the tonal range and get the walk away ease of workflow) with the 5D and copy lens.

or don't you see what I'm saying? (which is that there is more to it than the maths).

 

[sanking]

I think it was about scanning 4X5 or larger film, but you can read for yourself. Here is the thread. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=48057

To get the best results would probably require multiple shots and stitching. The lack of dynamic range of the DSLR sensor would have to be taken into account. 10 stops is really very little, only log log 1.5. To capture more you would need to bracket and then merge the shots to HDR.


Sandy King

Did they talk about scanning 35mm negs?



I used a Nikon 5000 (awful for traditional B/W films), a Konica Minolta 5400 II (cheap, fast, good results but notoriously unreliable) and an Imacon 646 (best quality, but slow and expensive). I own a 646.

 

[nsouto]

I have not extensively pursued this yet, mostly because I'm quite happy with the results I'm getting with my film scanners.

But about 6 months ago I gave it a twiddle. My setup:

- Nikon D80 10mpx, using RAW.

- Copy stand to hold camera and bellows.

- Slide sorting box at the bottom of the stand, with 35mm 6 image film strip on it and a piece of AN glass on top to keep all flat. This is a vanilla slide sorter, the kind you get with a rectangular A4-size plastic diffuser flat viewing surface and a diffused light source behind it. I think the light is a low-voltage neon tube of daylight balance, because it flickers when started. 12V power source. These boxes are available at most photo shops.

- Nikkor 105/2.5 lens mounted on a cheap HK-sourced bellows.




With this setup I was able to obtain good results with b&w negatives and reasonable from positive "slide" film.

In a nutshell, I noticed this:

- The camera must be colour balanced for the light source, even though it is supposed to be daylight. I used the standard D80 auto colour temp setting and that produced the most pleasing colour balance, matching the original. Didn't record what the actual colour temp setting was.

- The diffused light source gets rid of most if not all scratches, imperfections and other surface defects of the film. Including most drying marks. No need for the infra-red d-Ice of the scanners and that won't work with b&w negatives anyway.

- Grain is less noticeable than in a film scanner. This might be a consequence of the next point.

- 10mpx is waaaaay too low for the definition I'm used to getting from my film scanners. It however produces perfectly acceptable "scans" from slides and b&w, at that definition.

- Getting the framing just right is fiddly with my setup and takes a long time.

- Flatness was not a problem, but field curvature from the lens was. Hard to focus precisely, mostly because the focus point changed slightly as I closed down the iris. I ended up using the lens wide open, with slightly less sharp results than I could get if I spent the time to get precise focus at smaller apertures: it took less time that way. Not sure if this focusing problem was a result of the lens itself or something else. The 105/2.5 is not a macro lens, so this might be the problem.

- For normal slides and negatives, I didn't find dynamic range a problem. The results were evenly illuminated and there were no "hot" or "dark" spots. Have not tried with "difficult" film images.

Things I'd like to try next time I give it a go:

- Higher resolution. I think the Sony A900 or similar would be ideal. It matches what I can get from my very best film images and is the cheapest of the FF dslr brigade. I don't need high ISO for this, either.

- A proper macro lens setup. Maybe an enlarger lens? I've got an old slide duplicator that might work better, perhaps?

- A less fiddly setup to move the film strip. I need some way of keeping the flatness I get from the viewer and the AN glass on top and still be able to slide the lot across to quickly " scan" the strip. I'm thinking along the lines of a "sled" sandwich.


Is it faster overall than a flatbed scanner? I don't think so, at least not with my non-dedicated setup.

Is it faster than a film scanner? Yes, but nowhere near the top quality of those.

Can it cope with difficult, contrasty slide film images? No idea, but those I can use my film scanners for.

For a quick and dirty scan of an entire roll of film, for cataloguing purposes and small image output (certainly Internet size or APUG gallery size) , it's a feasible proposition.

Of course: at the stage I've pursued it so far, it is not a quality replacement for my film scanner workflow. But it's something that I intend revisiting.

 

[cmo]

In a few days I will receive a Novoflex bellows with slide copy attachment, a dedicated Olympus Macro lens (4/80) which gets high praise for being optimized for 1:1 and an adapter for my EOS 5D II. The light source will be an electronic flash so that I get daylight quality and avoid the slightest problem with vibrations. I will show some results as soon as I can compare scan vs. snapshot.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

In a few days I will receive a Novoflex bellows . . . I will show some results as soon as I can compare scan vs. snapshot.

I will be interested to see your results. I recently tried with my G1 a FD 50mm with extension rings (not gumby macro lens filters) and Metz flash for exposure. I was quite disappointed with the results however I tried with C-41 negative. I got ok results in the red channel but green and blue were bad and dreadful. I didn't see the point in HDRI'ing them when I get outstanding results (on C41 film) with my Coolscan 4000.

For bigger negs (6x9 and 4x5 sheet) I use my Epson quite successfully on C41 and more so with black and white. My blog abounds with samples.

 

[Marco B]

Have you considered this solution as well, if speed, or better said easy bulk processing of slides, is your main concern?:

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaDigitDia5000.html

It is a hybrid between a slide projector and digital camera...

 

[cmo]

Have you considered this solution as well, if speed, or better said easy bulk processing of slides, is your main concern?:

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaDigitDia5000.html

It is a hybrid between a slide projector and digital camera...

My main concern is uncompromising quality, and I want to work fast than with an Imacon. The Reflecta is far more on the side of speed, but the quality is lacking.